791.003/88: Telegram
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 31—9:45 a.m.]
65. Department’s 77, March 28, 7 p.m., was discussed with Foreign Office yesterday who hoped latent interest evinced by several foreign governments might result in a more united front with British and United States Governments towards Persians. I was informed of Persian reply to the British memorandum (enclosure 7 to Department’s [Page 702] instruction No. 1343, March 19, 1928)25 which, while agreeing in principle to safeguards, stated that, in the view of the Persian Government, safeguards and capitulations were not related subjects. Memorandum concluded in substance: “Safeguards would not of necessity be embodied in treaties to be concluded between the two parties but could be recorded in special protocols of notes.” Foreign Office believes since no treaty can be ratified by May 10 a modus vivendi is imperative.
Clive has telegraphed his personal doubt as to the efficiency of any foreign judicial adviser without knowledge of the Persian language and mentality (Foreign Office informally referred to situation in Turkey today with foreign judicial advisers). Clive continued should no agreement be reached concerning foreign judicial advisers “if in the light of a year or so’s experience, justice is proven so bad as to fortify our position, then strongly to press for reform, including engagement judicial counselors.”
Foreign Office telegraphed yesterday stating that engagement of foreign judicial advisers with adequate powers has been considered an imperative safeguard, but asking whether Clive in consultation with his colleagues can make any alternative recommendations.
I shall telegraph again next week.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .